[codetrotter]

> still a backwards monarchy that installs a king as head of state

Our royal family is there mostly just for show. Lots of us walk past the castle on our constitution day and wave to the king and the rest of his family and they wave back. Over the remainder of the year they hold some speeches, attend some openings and other events.

We are a democracy, and the power that is given to our king in the Norwegian constitution of 1814, has actually been managed by the government instead for a long time since then.

The function of our monarchy is largely one of ceremonial nature these days.

There was a vote in stortinget a couple of years ago over whether to disband or retain the monarchy. 36 representatives vote for disbanding the monarchy, and 130 representatives voted for keeping it. I think this is reflective of the overall attitude that we have of our monarchy; some are against it but the majority wants to keep it.

[webmobdev]

People don't seem to understand the concept of constitutional monarchy, and mistakenly believe that the King or Queen in such setups wield power. They are just titular heads of states in a democratic state where the elected representatives and the government hold the real power.

However, I'd say the United Kingdom is an exception here as the Queen still has a lot of power, legally, many of which they have never exercised (atleast in a public manner).

Some weird quirks include not needing a license to drive or not requiring a passport for international travel. She doesn't need to pay taxes (but does pay some). Apparently the Queen of England also owns all Swans in around river Thames and all the Whales / Dolphins in British waters.

More serious powers include being immune to prosecution, exception from Freedom of Information Request, the ability to over rule ministry decisions (in case of emergency or constitutional crisis), the ability to dismiss a government and call for an election. Any law affecting the monarchy requires the "Queens consent" before it can be debated in Parliament or the Queen can also refuse her assent to discuss a particular bill in parliament. She is the Commander-in-Chief of the entire UK military and has the power to order a nuclear strike.

(Ofcourse, in recent decades, it is understood that most of these powers should only be exercised under the advice of the elected government, but that is not how the laws are written and framed. All in all, I'd say she is the most brilliant politician of the 20th century to hold on to power for so long.)

[billyruffian]

Some of that is correct, the Queen has soverign immunity (a bit wider in scope than, say, the immunity afforded US presidents), and her household has excemption from some laws.

Some of the power you are referring to is the Royal Perogative in which the monarch is important constitutionally but not practically because the use of the Perogative is reserved for the Prime Minister.

Some of the things you mention, such as 'owning' swans and dolphins are not the possession of the Queen as a person (she can't sell them) but the Crown which is almost a deliberately confusing term that means the state. We'd talk about Crown buildings rather than government buildings for example.

Britan has a deliberately confusing unwritten constitution which works well much of the time and while we like to use language which makes it seem that the monarch has lots of power they really don't. The Queen absolutely does not have a nuclear button nor can she nuke anyone. The power to go to war used to be a Royal Perogative (the PM could declare war) but even this is now lost after adventures in Iraq and requires assent by parliament. Here you are confusing a symbolic role for a commanding role.

[webmobdev]

I didn't know about the crown / state context, and that makes more sense than the Queen herself owning the Swans and Dolphins. :)

But no, I am not confused about the symbolic roles vs what is written in law.

I am an indian and our current Parliamentary system is a British legacy. We understood the need of a titular role like the Queen in our system, and thus created the position of the President for it. So in India, everything happens in the name of the President of India. E.g. A law becomes a law only if the President signs it. However, our constitution clearly defines the role and the post has no real power over the Executive, Parliament or the Judiciary.

Personally, my perception of the British monarchy has been that the laws assigning the power to the monarchy, as it was then written gives them a lot of power. But it is only in the last 3 - 4 decades that they are being interpreted more "democratically" in modern parliamentary traditions (a reflection of the changing times). And thus it is being taken to mean that all her powers can only be exercised "under the advise of the cabinet", even if some of the laws don't explicitly state that. (As you rightly pointed out, the lack of a written constitution is a very interesting feature of the British system, as it allows for a more "flexible" interpretation of the law by the courts).

Interestingly, unlike in the indian system, a Queen can actually refuse to sign a bill into law. (In India, it is clearly spelled out that the President can refuse to sign a bill into law and send it back to the parliament with his objections. But if it is sent back again, the President has no choice but to sign and make it a law). So in theory, the Queen can over rule any law abolishing the monarchy or its role in the British system! There's also enough leeway, in theory, in the laws for the Queen to assume full power anytime in the future as the Queen can dismiss an elected government and elections can only be held when the Queen calls for it.

> The power to go to war used to be a Royal Perogative (the PM could declare war) but even this is now lost after adventures in Iraq and requires assent by parliament.

If I remember right, didn't the Queen refuse to give her assent to table this bill to the Parliament? (One of the rare times she exercised this power).

    In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament. 

Secret papers show extent of senior royals' veto over bills - https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-roy...

[billyruffian]

> If I remember right, didn't the Queen refuse to give her assent to table this bill to the Parliament?

The Queen, acting upon the advice of her government, refused to grant her consent for the Bill to be debated.

You see how this works? The Queen didn't just decide for herself.

Parliament is sovereign, it can vote to do away with any of these customs and traditions at any time it likes. But we like custom and tradition, it's part of our culture.

> it is only in the last 3 - 4 decades that they are being interpreted more "democratically" in modern parliamentary traditions

That is a ridiculously narrow view. There have been plenty of times we've had constitutional crises. We have an election to resolve them, such as the 1909 finance bill that resolved the issue of which chamber was supreme.

[frosted-flakes]

What you say is also largely true of the British, Canadian, Australian, etc. monarchy.